Today at the Supreme Court | 1.13.09

Posted Tue, January 13th, 2009 12:00 am by Ben Winograd

At 10 a.m., the Court may release one or more opinions in pending cases. We will provide coverage of any developments.

Following the release of any opinions, the Court will hear argument in Montejo v. Louisiana (07-1529), involving interrogation and the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. Donald Verrilli of Washington, D.C., will argue for the petitioner, and Kathryn Landry of Baton Rouge, La., will argue for the respondent.

At 11 a.m., the Court will hear argument in Vermont v. Brillon (08-88), involving the Speedy Trial Act and delays caused by public defenders. Christina Rainville of the Vermont Attorney’s office and Leondra Kruger of the Solicitor General’s office will argue for the petitioner, and William Nelson, Middlebury, Vt., will argue for the respondent.

At 1 p.m., the Court will hear argument in Knowles v. Mirzayance (07-1315), involving an ineffective assistance of counsel claim over a recommendation to withdraw a plea of insanity. Steven Mercer of the California Attorney General’s Office will argue for the petitioner, and Charles Sevilla, of San Diego, Cal., will argue for the respondent.

We will post links to transcripts of the arguments as soon as they are available.

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

The justices met on Friday for their February 16 conference; our "petitions to watch" for that conference are available at this link. The calendar for the February sitting, which begins on February 20, is available on the Supreme Court's website.

Major Cases

United States v. Microsoft Corp.Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.

Gill v. Whitford(1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

Carpenter v. United StatesWhether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Conference of February 16, 2018

FTS USA, LLC v. Monroe (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act and the due process clause permit a collective action to be certified and tried to verdict based on testimony from a small subset of putative plaintiffs without either any statistical or other similarly reliable showing that the experiences of those who testified are typical and can be reliably be extrapolated to the entire class, or a jury finding that the testifying witnesses are representative of the absent plaintiffs; and (2) whether the procedure for determining damages upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in which the district court unilaterally determined damages without any jury finding, violates the Seventh Amendment.

Silvester v. Becerra (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly applied lenient scrutiny in a Second Amendment challenge to the application of California's full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers who pass their background check in fewer than 10 days and already own another firearm or have a concealed carry license; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to cabin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's concerted resistance to and disregard of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions.